HomeMy WebLinkAboutHealth File - Miscellaneous - 101 CRICKET LANE 10/28/2019 (3) n r
MILL RIVER CONSULTING
Septic System Management Services
October 15, 2003
Brain LaGrasse
Health Inspector
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
RE: 101 Cricket Lane
Dear Mr. LaGrasse,
As requested by the North Andover Board of Health, Mill River Consulting has reviewed the file
for the property at 101 Cricket Lane in order to provide guidance towards resolution of the
outstanding issues. To that end we make the following observations and suggestions.
1. RETAINING WALUGRADING
The approved subdivision plan apparently contains a grading easement to allow fill material to
be brought onto the adjacent parcel to meet certain requirements of the septic system design and
the state regulations. Apparently a driveway now exists in this easement and the placement of
fill in this location would be problematic.
Based on review of the file it does appear possible for a retaining wall to be constructed which
will be in compliance with state and local codes and remain entirely within the bounds of the
locus property. This will reduce or eliminate a series of questions and concerns which exist
about final grading, legal documentation and the ability for the adjacent property owner to utilize
their driveway.
Design of a poured concrete retaining wall to meet the regulatory grading requirements while
staying within the property line to the North of the soil absorption system likely could be
completed. State regulations allow the 10' offset from the soil absorption system to the
impervious barrier and retaining wall to be reduced, without a variance, when site conditions
require. After a proper design for the wall has been completed and reviewed, a Disposal Systems
Construction Permit may be issued to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer to construct the wall.
Inspections should be performed by the Board of Health and the designer to assure compliance
with the design and regulatory requirements. Prior to construction the property line should be
staked by a land surveyor, and an as-built plan of the wall and its location should be provided by
5 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2259
toll free 1 . 800. 377. 3044 978.282. 0014
info@millriverconsulting. com
A
L/HA THIS PUN C0NFgHMS TO THE RULES AND
C REGUUTONS OF gSTRY OF DEEDS
H
LOT 7 �
REgJIRY USE
� LOT 8
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY
LINES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE THE
LINES DI LADING EXISTING OWNERSHIPS AND
THE LINES OF THE STREETS AND WAYS yy
SHOWN ARE THOSE OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
REE 9
STTS OR WAYS ALREADY ESTABLISHED
AND THAT NO NEW LINES FOR THE
MMSION OF EXISTING OWNERSHIP OR LOT 9
FOR NEW WAYS ARE SHOWN. F
y�y I CT
1f 4fH 0e
STEPHEN .L. - p
LOT 10 ..ol, LOT 5
ti.
PROPOSED
SEPTIC SYSTEM
EASEMENT(TYPICAL)
Op•
LOT 11
e
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 1
M ANDRY
BFJ+Z g LAND of
!oE.18T.I.Z
REMAINING
NORTH A ER MASS.DRA FOR
Co
1�
/ryf so CCP41DDPIYE- ETHUFl gMASSDEVEFU 0124. V
m SCALE:
9 DATE:DECEMBER/5 1999
IIANIERRWACX SERvim
PARR STREET
ANDaWER.MAssagETMi1mtllDSETTsNG 01e10
a.a
rod r��a�
Auk
tot CR,c4er LA,r_
Willis &Rubina Hendley
»------- 105 Rollin Ridge Lane
TL'<'vt`�+!OF hnR�H^•";'�=G'.'`�-�/ g g
EEC!^..^o OF HEN:1!�� Methuen,MA 01844-2669
Mr Raymond Santilli � -., I M Wednesday September 17,2003
Assistant Town Manager 8 Delivered by Hand
Town of North Andover ---
120 Main Street _
North Andover,MA 0184U__
Re: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision:
Notification of Invalidity of Septic Design Plan [Oct 15, 2002 revision and NABOH
approval Nov 4, 20021 for above-referenced New-Construction property
Dear Mr Santilli,
On August 21,we determined that the above-referenced septic design plan, depicting
construction of a 75 feet long septic wall,4 feet above grade at its highest point, to bring the
existing septic installation at our new-construction property into compliance with minimum
setbacks, appeared to be invalid.We believed that the deeded septic easement appurtenant to
our property precluded use for construction, since this easement was described solely for the
purposes of access and addition and/or movement of soil or earth material.Therefore,it
appeared to us that the section of the septic wall construction that had been depicted within
this easement would not be legally permissible.
By September 5,we had received independent confirmation of our doubts from our septic
designer and real estate attorney.We are legally-obligated to disclose this information despite
the approval received from your Health Director Ms Sandra Starr ten months ago for
implementation of the above-referenced plan.
We also discovered other deficiencies per regulations in both the preparation and subsequent
approval of the plan, such as:
• failure to provide written proof of a septic easement,per NABOH 9.02;
• failure to provide evidence (book and page number) of the registry-recorded septic
easement,per NABOH 9.02;
• failure to depict names of abutters,per NABOH 8.02j;
• failure to list variance from NABOH 9.02 "Retaining walls used to make breakout
according to 310 CMR 15.255(2) shall be reinforced poured concrete"in proposing
the "Versa-Lok retaining wall";
• failure to depict water lines and other subsurface utilities,per 310 CMR 15.220(m)
and NABOH 8.02u;
• failure to state disclaimer"No wetland or watercourse exists within 100 feet from the
leaching facility or reserve area",per NABOH 8.02s.
A complication in our efforts to bring our existing septic installation into compliance with
setback requirements is the fact that a portion of our deeded septic easement,in the vicinity
of a leach trench adjacent to the property line,was actually compromised during
construction on the adjacent lot. If we exercised our right to use of this easement, the
addition of soil to a height of 4 feet would create significant topographical changes that
would prevent our neighbors from any access to their garages.As we stated in a November
11,2002, communication to Ms Heidi Griffin"We cannot,in all sanity,leave our neighbors
with this obstruction."
On our behalf, our septic designer has determined that upon removal of the incorrectly-
depicted septic wall from this section of easement:
• it will not be possible to bring the existing septic leach trench adjacent to the
property line into compliance with minimum setback requirements by the addition of
soil, even if this portion of our septic easement had not been compromised.
Therefore,our only option- based on existing site conditions,which aside from our completed
landscaping, are the same as when the original septic installation was completed in
November 2000-is the:
(a) removal of both existing leach trenches and replacement with a three-trench
design;
(b) removal and replacement of the existing distribution box;
(c) construction of a slope-retention and sewage-mitigation septic wall,which is
necessarily longer and higher to compensate for loss of use of our septic
easement on the adjacent property for the purposes of soil addition.
We have received verbal estimates for the work (a)— (c) above conservatively estimated at
$40,000 that do not include restoration of the landscaping.
This course of action will incur further financial hardship for us and the delay associated
with its administration and implementation could place us in jeopardy of not being able to
occupy our otherwise habitable property for the second winter running. It is small comfort
to us that the Town of North Andover is only now considering possible dismissal action
against Ms Starr,when we are in the position of having to dig up a substantial portion of a
septic system installed to completion under her oversight whilst our former builder was legal
owner and for which she also let the installer of record walk away.With regard to the septic
installation at our property during this time,Ms Starr failed to keep a complete record or
enforce the submission of DEP-mandated documentation. This has effectively meant that
events behind the septic non-compliance at our new-construction property are concealed
from scrutiny. One of the many significant failures on her part was the Tide 5 requirement,
before sale of a property, that mandates the previous owner (our former builder) to submit
the results of a septic inspection for a system for which a local board of health has not issued
a ceryoompliance.
You
Willis A M Hendley Rubina Hendley
1
cc
Mr Mark Rees,Town Manager
Ms Rosemary Smedile,Chairman,Board of Selectmen
Ms Heidi Griffin,Acting Health Director and Community Development Director
Mr Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner
Mr Michael McGuire,Building Inspector
Mr J Justin Woods,Planning Department
Mr Brian LaGrasse, Health Inspector
Building Department file for 101 Cricket Lane
Health Department file for 101 Cricket Lane
A'a ..
Town of North Andover
Office of the Health Department �: • ' °p
Community Development and Services Division • . •
27 Charles Street
too b° •'o ,(�
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 'sa�,wz�`
Heidi Griffin Telephone(978)688-9540
Acting Public Health Director Fax(978)688-9542
September 5, 2003
Willis and Rubina Hendley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen,MA 01844-2669
RE: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane Septic Design Approvals
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley:
Septic design plans dated Revised October 15, 2002, for the aforementioned
address were submitted to the Board of Health for design approvals on October 21,
2002. There was a technical deficiency with regard to the retaining walls bottom
elevation not being included on the design plans. Mrs. Sandra Starr spoke with Norse
Environmental on November 1, 2002 afid requested the addition of the retaining wall
elevation. Revised design plans dated November 1,2002 were submitted and
subsequently approved on November 4,2002. Verbal approvals were granted to
Norse Environmental regarding the septic design plans with written approval to
follow. The septic design plans dated September 23, 2002, Revised October 15, 2002
and November 1, 2002, are currently approved and signed. You may pick up copies of
the signed plan at the Health Department at you earliest convenience.
S' c rely,
`` •►
B ' J. LaGrasse
Health Inspector
Cc: Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager
Heidi Griffin, Acting Public Health Director
File
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-954 t BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 689-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
RECEIVED
Willis&Rubina Hendley
AUG 2 6 2003 t k) 105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen,MA 01844-2669
NORTHANDOVER
CONSERVATION COMMISSION Fax 978 685 1064
Tuesday August 26, 2003
Ms Sandra Starr
Director,Health Dept
Town of North Andover TOV C F NO
27 Charles Street �0�,!D OF HE',;�?
North Andover,MA 01845
[A"916 210
Delivered by hand
F
RE: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane,Walnut Ridge Subdivision
Dear Ms Starr,
At your earliest convenience,please submit copies of the following with regard to the septic
system non-compliance at the above property.Transmittal via fax is acceptable:
1) current list of certified septic installers for the Town of North Andover;
2) copies of your letters sent to Mr Steven Eriksen of Norse Environmental Services with
regard to your disapproval of the original design plan submitted by him dated 9/23/02 and
your subsequent approval of his 10/15/02 revision to this,per NA BOH septic regulation
2.04 Review Letters:
"Approval or disapproval letters will be sent to the designer upon completion of the plan
review"
Yours sincerely,
Willis Hendley Rubina Hendley
cc Delivered by hand:
Mr Mark Rees,Town Manager
Mr Ray Santilli,Assistant Town Manager
Ms Rosemary Smedile, Chairman,Board of Selectmen
NORTF
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
sa,,
10�?,
BOARD OF HEALTH
27 CHARLES STREET > L
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 ;°^,_° •';�h
,SACHU`E
FRANCIS P. MACMILLAN, M.D. Telephone(978)688-9540
CHAIRMAN FAX(978)688-9542
Sandra Starr, R.S., C.H.O.
Public Health Director
MEMORANDUM F1
DATE: May 20, 2003
TO: Heidi Griffin, Director, CD&S
FROM: Sandra Starr, Health Director
RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane (101) Status
The Health Department is awaiting the application of a North Andover Licensed septic installer
to repair and complete the septic system.
The installation process stalled when the licensed installer stopped working on the site before the
process was finished. At some subsequent point the pipe in the leach area was broken. There
were also issues with an easement, such that the original design required a modification in order
to comply with Title 5 of the State Environmental Code. A design was developed by Steve
Erickson of Norse Environmental, submitted and approved by the Health Department.
All that remains is for a licensed installer to
• obtain a permit from the Health Department,
• construct a retaining wall according to the modified design,
• replace the broken pipe,
• have the repair and wall inspected,
• cover the system, and
• have the Health Department perform a final grade inspection.
A septic installer's list was sent to the owners on April 11, 2003.
:r. h
W_ r1�
Willis &Rubina Hendley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen, MA 01844-2669 My 9 @03
Monday May 19,2003
Delivered by hand
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
OPEN LETTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND SELECTPERSONS
Re: Our Seeking Occupancy for 101 Cricket Lane,Walnut Ridge Subdivision
Our Open Letter supplements the first formal protest we made in writing to your Town
Manager,in a communication dated Friday November 22,2002, of how your officials
connected with the building process engaged in maneuvers to make our ability to obtain final
sign-offs for our Occupancy Permit for our above horre-to-be as miserable as possible, so
that, presumably,we are encouraged to give up trying to ever become residents of North
Andover and/or that these deliberate delays lead us into financial constraints to make us
foreclose on our property.
In our account to your Town Manager of what occurred to us regarding the final sign-offs
from your Plumbing/Gas and Fire Inspectors,we condensed the run-around we received
from them. The actual events were a disgraceful and lengthy subjugation of us to meeting
supposed conditions that chopped and changed ad infinitum so that a final-sign-off
process that took A FEW MINUTES in IDENTICAL circumstances at other
properties in this subdivision were made into weeks and months in our case. The
intent of these officials had nothing to do with any semblance of performing their duties in a
professional manner-it was designed to cause us maximum aggravation.
Rubina's vilification in the public record (and our staunch belief that these officials would
have thought twice about doing this to a white person) by your Conservation Administrator
Ms Julie Parrino and Director of Public Works Mr Robert Beshara is an outrage perpetrated
by these officials of a magnitude that is egregious and reckless in the extreme.
We are both the legal owners of this property,Ms Parnino and Mr Beshara had met both of
us prior to sending out their recriminatory letters,yet it was Rubina who was singled out by
them despite these alleged misdeeds being of a general nature allegedly affecting our
property as a whole. These letters would have been despicable enough addressed to us both,
but specifically targeting Rubina speaks volumes for the mindset of their senders. In these,
Rubina was blamed for a series of alleged wrong-doings (including a DEP citation for
criminal activity by Ms Partino). Further, the supposed infractions within these letters were
stated as fact with neither support nor substantiation at the time these officials made their
written determinations, other than what appears to be remarkable psychic abilities on their
part. With this ability,Mr Beshara also deemed that elements on our property be demolished
or made threats of demolition against them with no basis whatsoever for his orders of
destruction, not even providing an as-built plan. [Mr Beshara's threat to demolish a beautiful
stone-wall directly adjacent to our property was particularly spiteful in its intent, since the
Page 1 of 18
....
Adftk
`story'behind its construction is common knowledge in the subdivision.] Mr Beshara also
conveniently omitted referring in his letter to the one-hour he spent haranguing Rubina at
what he describes only as "his site visit" on May 23, and preferred instead to refer to what
sounded like a jaunty tete-a-tete "with the homeowner and landscape contractor"on May 24,
when in fact that day both of us, not just Rubina,were harassed by him.
Both these reports in the public record also contain other outright falsehoods. In the case of
Mr Beshara's letter, the net result was to let the developer, our former builder and Mr
Beshara himself off the hook for the real reason the town easement on our property was
compromised by having the convenience of"Mrs Rubina Hendley" (already notorious as the
subdivision villain courtesy of Ms Parrino) as the scapegoat. Then a few days after receipt of
Mr Beshara's letter, the developer's daughter,Ms Gerry-Lynn Darcy, also sends Rubina a
letter expressing righteous indignation at all the awful horrors Rubina has committed, as
catalogued for her by Mr Beshara, and goes on to threaten legal action against Rubina for
these (these, too, determined by Ms Darcy with what appear to be the same remarkable
psychic abilities as Mr Beshara's and Ms Parrino's). Both Mr Beshara and Ms Darcy must
think we were born yesterday to not realize how obviously orchestrated this was. No doubt
this game so wantonly played by them both with defiling someone else's reputation also led
to bond money being released by your town.
Because these letters take the form of`official'pronouncements in the written public record,
they will be taken seriously and assumed by many (as has already been the case within this
subdivision) to be true without any question of their veracity or validity. Such libelous and
defamatory statements soon became talking points in the subdivision,we learnt,and
repeated with glee by the likes of your Health Administrator Mr Brian La Grasse in
conversations with us. We have suffered enough from Mr LaGrasse's rudeness and sarcasm
-we are not alone in remarking on this official's atrocious behavior-without his adding this
slanderous fuel to his repertoire. [For instance,Willis asked a perfectly abstract question in
an August 2002 phone conversation with Mr LaGrasse for advice on what we were
supposed to do and was met with the answer: "Mr Sawyer is reputable. The reason you are
in so much trouble is that you don't know what you're doing." By inference,we presume we
are not"reputable".]
These letters have understandably caused considerable distress to Rubina, that she feels to
this day, as well as to Willis and our entire immediate family. Thus, there is an entire
subdivision in your town with multiple examples of violations (some serious) committed by
the developer and various contractors that can all be corroborated with hard facts,not mere
suppositions,but which have remained virtually unreported, un-addressed and uncorrected
by your officials, and yet the only damning record of malfeasance within it by any individual
is that against brown-skinned"Mrs Rubina Hendley" on a foundation that is non-existent.
Meanwhile,you, as a town, have not even bothered to even ask the most fundamental
question of your officials involved in sending out these letters, even after we alerted you,
namely,what specifically is the support for the criminal citation, demolition orders and
reports of wrong-doing being stated as fact?
We reached a point last November, not just of extreme mental and physical exhaustion,but
also of realizing that the civility and composure we had maintained up to that point in our
Page 2 of 18
interaction with your officials - despite encountering all manner of unrelenting humiliations,
degradations and other ignominies at their hands -was an absolute waste of our time. It is an
effort for us to do so in this letter, since our only impression of the environment in your
town is one in which this kind of misconduct is all in a day's work—tolerated and allowed to
flourish. Our rights have not just been trampled over,but removed entirely and we find
ourselves at the mercy of a town and its officials who are exercising not jurisdiction but
abuse of power.
Overall,the administration of this subdivision by your town has been an utter shambles and
there are homeowners with properties with significant violations of local and state
regulations through no fault oftheir own -just as in out case.These are not due to
isolated examples of an honest mistake or two by your officials,but wholesale abrogation of
their responsibilities. [An attorney for one of the other homeowners reported ofhis own
volition to Rubina that he was not just angry with the builder/developer for the violations
his clients'house was left with,but with your town for having"allowed"them.] But the
main difference is that they are living in their homes,whilst we are not and, only in the case
of Willis and Rubina Hendley,does the town of North Andover get on its high horse and
lectures and blames us for these violations occurring,when they were committed by the
developer,our former builder and other contractors under the full oversight of your
respective officials. It is noteworthy, that we were the ones to bring many to your attention
in the first place! Thus,it has been the case that,when these violations committed by others
and left uncorrected by them causes us difficulties,we could be assured that your town
would suddenly become conscious of every t and every i needing to be punctuated by Willis
and Rubina Hendley and, for good measure, throw in a list of regulations at us that exist only
in thin air.
Indeed,as we have learnt to our cost,impartiality has been virtually an unknown entity in
your town in many of its dealings with us. Our interactions with public officials have
revealed widespread steadfast support of, and an obsequious manner of regarding the
developer and contractors in this subdivision—a concern echoed to us by other residents in
North Andover. Even more troubling,since your town has a habit of dismissing anything
we say or report,is the fact that the public record supports instances of your town allowing
the developer and other contractors to circumvent regulations.
We believe one of the reasons for the antagonism towards us is that we have disrupted and
exposed this status quo in North Andover and we have even been foolhardy to think it
reasonable to ask your town for accountability,let alone principled conduct as the norm.
Of the numerous serious abuses of the public trust by your town,we consider the situation
within the Board of Health under your Health Director,Ms Sandra Starr,to be so
unpalatable for the public welfare that we had no hesitation in filing a complaint with DEP.
We do not consider there is anything remotely reasonable about having to deal with an
official,who has concealed deception by the septic installer responsible for the septic
installation at our property (see part two of our DEP complaint),has the most rude and
dismissive mannerisms we have ever experienced with any public official and whose
oversight of the septic installations at our property and at others within this subdivision is
replete with dereliction of duty and demonstrable lack of competence.Together with the
hateful and harmful way both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse have treated us,we will never be
Page 3 of 18
0 ���-y/
assured of any fair treatment from either of these officials. At a minimum,we believed
strongly that Ms Starr's serious professional misconduct needed to be reported at state level
whether or not any censure or other action occurs. It goes without saying that in light of our
experiences with your town it would have been an exercise in futility for us to expect any
move by your town to address Ms Starr's conduct and administrative neglect, especially since
we have been made aware of numerous complaints about Ms Starr that you as a town appear
not to have adequately addressed,with very real grievances and difficulties being experienced
by homeowners and contractors alike,aside from the ones who happen to be in her favor.
We have, thus,been prevented from occupying our home-to-be, not because we have done
anything wrong,but as a result of a series of what can only be described as the most
vindictive, often retaliatory, acts and decisions hurled at us and time and time again by
certain of these officials.This is the form they have taken- "tailored" specifically for us—
and a blatant assault on our liberty to be able to live in and enjoy our home free of
unnecessary constraints and restrictions:
• utterly bogus conditions for us to comply with (always conveniently verbal);
• other conditions that are both vague and contradictory (also conveniently verbal);
• decisions due to malicious interpretation of regulations (also conveniently verbal);
• decisions that have impeded our ability to seek competitive bids free of restrictive
trade practices;
• decisions based on incorrect or lack of understanding of regulations.
In a personal meeting we had with Ms Rosemary Smedilie on November 22,2002,we
informed her of the stress we had needlessly been placed under and our deteriorating mental
and physical well-being and we were led to believe that the Town Manager would call us.We
were so looking forward to finally having an end to the surreal nightmare created for us.
Instead of the direct personal contact with us we were expecting and an offer to the effect of
`let's get you into the house for you to enjoy Christmas',we received a letter from his office
dated January 8,2003, that is quite frankly an insult to anyone's intelligence,in that it
consists of obfuscations, sidestepping,lame excuses and absurd and far-fetched reasoning in
an attempt to justify blatant misconduct and outright negligence;essentially condoning it. It
also displays an inappropriately woeful ignorance of even your own town's regulations,let
alone state and federal regulations,rights and protections. Neither are we amused by its tone
of condescension in the `solutions'proposed and the implication that we do not follow
regulations.We have had enough aspersions cast on our good name without this further
denigration of our character.Additionally, since the public record for this subdivision
supports the fact that you,as a town,are in the proverbial glass house,it is more than
disingenuous for your town to attempt to adopt such a sanctimonious stance.
This sort of response has not only exposed your town's callous indifference to our situation,
but could hardly, to put it mildly,be considered salutary-it has helped us understand how
the officials concerned are able to hold themselves above the law and behave with impunity
whenever and in whatever manner they choose to with us. The actions of your officials,
sanctioned at Town Manager level,have led to months of unjustifiable delay and expense to
us.The mental anguish and suffering we have been caused has had deleterious effects on our
health,with both of us dealing with acute depression and countless sleepless nights in
addition to total upheaval in our personal, family, financial and working lives. Our son and
Page 4 of 18
respective parents (Willis' mother died after a period of illness during the merry-go-round we
were put on by your Fire Inspector) have not been spared distress either.Tried as we did, to
shield our beloved ones from any knowledge of the ill-will we were being subjected to,it was
impossible. It is painful for us to see how our own families are so badly affected by the harm
and hurt your officials have and are causing us. These officials would never have
contemplated, let alone dared, to engage in the antics they have so freely and maliciously
done with us on any one of you.
Below in numbered form is a continuation of our account, summarizing what were actually
much more tortured and convoluted happenings, of how we have been treated:
1. Fire Inspector:
In the Town Manager's January 8 letter to us:
"You state that you have been trying to receive a final sign-off on the interior sprinkler
system from the fire inspector since mid-August. Per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting
for a set of prints and calculations for the sprinkler system before granting final approval.
Approximately a year ago, he conducted a flow test on the system but still required the
appropriate paperwork before final approval. The burden to produce the required
paperwork is on the installer through the property owners.
In order to assist in expediting this issue,Lieutenant Melnikas,in lieu of the required
paperwork is willing to conduct a "walk-through"in order to visually examine the sprinkler
system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department,Lieutenant Melnikas
will provide the final sign-off on the interior sprinkler system. Please contact his office at
978-688-9530 to schedule a mutually convenient time."
So, your Fire Inspector has finally agreed to perform a visual walk-through inspection at our
property, a decision he was able to make INSTANTANEOUSLY at the seven other
properties in this subdivision that were in the SAME circumstances as ours, but one
that took him FIVE MONTHS to make to the case oFourpropertyand that, too, only
after we complained.
You see,in our November 22 letter we suspended describing our ordeal at the hands of your
Fire Inspector with the statement:
"....we suggested to your fire inspector to use the blueprints for Lot 7 (#132) because this
property has an almost identical interior layout to ours."
We will tell you why your Fire Inspector could not do this, since he appears to have
neglected to mention it himself. In Rubina's October 23, 2002 phone call to your Fire
Inspector, she asked for a copy of the blueprints for Lot 7 and was informed by him that he
had"only received the sprinkler plans for Lots 6 and 8". More correctly,would have been to
state that he did not bother ensuring the others were submitted.
Your Town Manager's explanation "per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of
prints and calculations before granting final approval"is a weak attempt to validate your Fire
Inspector's failings in the following regards:
Page 5of18
1. Your Fire Inspector did not bother to get the sprinkler plans and calculations for a
total of 8 out of the 10 new-construction properties in this subdivison and then to
check BEFORE work on installation even commenced if the coverage depicted
in these plans was adequate, as was his required duty for safety reasons per your
regulations;
2. Despite the requirement,per your regulations, that plans and calculations be
submitted BEFORE the granting of a Building Permit, every one of the 8 out of 10
properties without plans had the Building Permits issued anyway;
3. Then, the entire sprinkler installation was allowed to proceed to completion at all 8
properties without any plans and calculations and at this point, in our case only,it
suddenly became important to have a these on file after all the work was completed -
a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted,if ever there was
one.
For the record,your Fire Inspector actually came to our property on August 9,2002,
when Rubina was present, for the purpose of our receiving our final sign-off from him for
the sprinklers and smoke detectors. He left without giving us any sign-off and, as he was
leaving,Rubina asked why.Your Fire Inspector informed Rubina that the plumber needed
to do a flow test first and when Rubina informed him that this had already been done the
previous year,your Fire Inspector then said he would need to first check at his office to see
what Rubina stated was true. He informed Rubina that he needed a couple of days to
double-check and if the flow test had indeed been performed, then Rubina could bring our
Building Permit to his office and he would sign it. Rubina spoke to him a couple of days
later and, from that point on for a period of three weeks, not only did your Fire Inspector
refuse to issue the sign-off he had promised,but also went back and forth with her for what
he wanted from us for this final sign-off.After this dilly-dallying, the `version'your Fire
Inspector eventually settled on for what he was expecting us to comply with was this:
that our plumber re-do a flow test for him because it had been done "all that time ago" and
for us to provide sprinkler blueprints for the installation.
Yet, despite the fact that it was a total impossibility for us to provide these plans and
that your Fire Inspector was fully aware of this(and our November 22 letter explains we
could not comply with your Fire Inspector's demand because we informed him that we had
been informed that the company issuing these had since gone out of business),your Fire
Inspector remained fixated on us providing these plans and never once suggested, even
though Willis suggested it on two occasions in phone calls to your Fire Inspector,
that he do a walk-through with a visual inspection—which is what he could and should
have done the time of his original August 9 walk-through at our property.
Instead, for a total of over three months,Rubina ended up speaking regularly with your Fire
Inspector regarding finalizing our sign-off. Each time Rubina mentioned how unhappy our
plumber was at re-doing the test now that carpets had been installed, the fact he had already
satisfactorily performed this test before and also the impossibility of obtaining blueprints for
the sprinklers. Each time your Fire Inspector remained intransigent. In the last two
conversations Rubina had with him, she pleaded"please,Lieutenant Melnikas,let us have a
sign-off;it has been over three months",he responded each time with "you know what you
have to do,get your plumber to make an appointment with me to do that flow test again"
followed by the same "then we'll see", said in a flippant and almost mocking tone.
Page 6of18
Rubina refused to have any more contact with your Fire Inspector after our plumber
personally stopped by (first on a Monday,when he learnt the Inspector does not work, and
then again the next day) to talk to your Fire Inspector about his unhappiness with doing yet
another flow test with the nice carpets we had had installed. Our plumber then reported
back to us that your Fire Inspector had told him that there was no reason for a flow test
after all, stating"I didn't realize you were the same plumber", but that we the homeowners
still needed to provide plans. Clearly,your Fire Inspector's "then we'll see" to Rubina
actually translated as `then we'll see you get the run-around for longer'.
Thus, for months your Fire Inspector had repeatedly stressed to Rubina that our plumber
needed to perform the flow test again because it had been done by our plumber"all that
time ago", now changes his story to not needing one after all because our plumber is the
"same" person, but remains steadfast in our need to provide him with blueprints, all the
while Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 do not and yet the homeowners of these properties have
occupancy.
2. Gas Inspector:
The explanation offered in your Town Manager's letter for the run-around we suffered at
your Gas Inspector's hands can be similarly dissected by us, as with the above scenario, and
shows, once again, how supposed rules and regulations were applied only to us and were
also distorted in their application. Yet again, the response from the Town Manager fails to
directly address or explain the actual issues we raised in our November 22 letter.
3. Electrical Inspector:
Moments after Willis picked up a Permit in his name to complete the finish electrical work at
our property, Rubina received a phone from our former builder's electrician. This contractor
proceeded,in vehement fashion, to berate (a stupified) Rubina for what he stated were our
criticisms of him and his work at our property. Rubina was totally shaken by his claims. It
transpires that your Electrical Inspector had made a phone call to this contractor soon after
Willis had obtained our permit and (most unprofessionally) felt it appropriate to indulge in
`gossip' about our decision for completing the finish electrical work ourselves at our
property- our complete right to do so under the regulations.
4. Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation Administrator:
For reasons we could not fathom during Spring 2002 (but which explained themselves in
due course), our landscape contractor and we were being subject to constant meddling and
unpleasant needling by the developer's site contractor/septic installer Mr William Sawyer
during a landscaping project at our property that had started on April 5. [This was actually a
continuation of the same pattern of behavior that had begun a few weeks before we became
legal owners in May 2001.] Suffice to say,we were not impressed with the way this
contractor could run to your officials with all kinds of tales about us and rely on their full
cooperation in joining in with,not just the harassing of us, but also with hurling at us all
kinds of other accusations at us that emanated from him as fact. In frustration at the daily
nonsense our landscaper and we were being subjected to by your officials, on both our
behalves, Rubina paid a visit to Mr Tim Willet and Conservation. Regarding the visit to the
Page 7of18
^ SAL
latter department,Rubina spoke to both Ms Parrino and her assistant Alison about our
landscaping project,mentioning we were perplexed about Mr Sawyer's reason for
complaining to the town about us. Ms Parrino told Rubina she would be on our property the
following day, to which demand Rubina said"you will give me the courtesy of doing so
when I am there" and asked Ms Parrino for an appointment time. However,Ms Parrino
would not give one and told Rubina to speak with Mary, the Conservation secretary, for the
actual time of her proposed visit. Mary,in turn, told Rubina that she could not set up an
appointment without speaking to Ms Parrino 0). So,Rubina left and phoned Mary again
several times that day to find out the time Ms Parrino had arranged or alternatively to speak
to Ms Parrino directly. Each time Mary informed Rubina that Ms Parrino was too busy to
talk to her,that Ms Parrino knew about letting Rubina know and that Ms Parrino wished to
have Rubina's cell phone number.The next morning Rubina went to our property just
before 8am and once again phoned Mary several times for the time of Ms Parrino's arrival,
since Rubina could not spend all day outside wondering and waiting. Each time Mary
assured Rubina that Ms Parrino knew she needed to give Rubina an appointment time and
that Ms Parrino would be contacting her.After over fours hours of waiting,Rubina phoned
Mary to tell her that Ms Parrino still had not been in touch,that Rubina was thirsty and
hungry from waiting in the heat and would return within 20 minutes after picking up
refreshments just down the road. In the short time while Rubina was away,Ms Parrino
arrived,having never contacted Rubina and proceeded to wander round our property with
Mr Sawyer and to impose a stop order to our landscaping work in part of our detention
basin.
The subsequent leveling of Ms Parrino's DEP criminal citation against Rubina was made just
hours after Rubina had a lengthy cell phone conversation with Ms Partin soon after Ms
Parrino's intrusion onto our property,in which Rubina informed Ms Parrino that she
"expected more professionalism" from her. Rubina informed Ms Parrino that she did not
"think it was right to ignore me every time I tried to make an appointment".Ms Partin
then told (an incredulous) Rubina that"you have altered grades within the detention basin"
and that she wanted us to"have a survey done", further claiming that our detention basin
had already been surveyed as part of the overall certification procedures the developer
needed to comply with (when in fact this was a false statement-see our DEP complaint).
Rubina then asked Ms Parrino to explain specifically what she meant by"we had altered
grades",to which Ms Parrino only reiterated her demand that she wanted us to do a survey.
Getting nowhere with Ms Parrino's stubborn refusal to consider our side of the story,
Rubina then said"since you have helped yourself onto our property, did you see any grades
being altered in the detention basin?"To this,Ms Parrino admitted she had not. Rubina
then informed Ms Parrino that if she wished to listen to"gossip and insinuations about us
from Mr Sawyer",that Ms Parrino was "free to do so on the street"and"not while roaming
around our property,without our permission,in our absence,in the company of this site
contractor who had no authorization to be there either". During this conversation,Ms
Parrino- obviously unmoved by Rubina's consternation at having trespassed on our
property and slandered our good name by hurling spurious accusations at us as fact-
demanded again that we arrange for a survey to ostensibly disprove (or presumably prove)
the allegation made by the site contractor that grades within our detention basin had been
altered.When Rubina protested this requirement,Ms Parrino continued in the same
specious vein and informed Rubina that,because Rubina was "not an engineer",Ms Parrinio
did not consider her qualified. Rubina pointed out that neither Ms Parrino nor Mr Sawyer
Page 8of18
were surveyors and yet she was not asking Mr Sawyer to prove his allegation to be true. Ms
Parrino again demanded we conduct a survey of the detention basin to prove to her that
grades had not been altered and stated if we did not do this we would not get a final
sign-offfrom her.
Ms Parrino also went on to verbally impose a series of conditions on the use of the rear of
our property within the 100'wetland buffer zone (one of only two in this entire subdivision
that are well outside this zone,including the majority of the detention basin), that were so
ludicrous and restrictive that we practically were expected to ask her permission before even
touching a blade of grass.
Our follow-up letter to DEP includes some other details, the not insignificant ones being
that Ms Parrino had a lengthy discussion with both of us prior to mailing out her criminal
citation of Rubina alone, and of your own Conservation Commission's wanton disregard for
its responsibilities in ensuring the developer complied with DEP-mandated requirements.
The expense and delay we were thus subjected to by Ms Parrino's demands before she
would give us a sign-off were a complete violation, from beginning to end, of all the rights
and protections we are afforded under the law.
Little did we know at that time that Ms Parrino was just a warm-up for even uglier travails in
your officials'hands.
5. Building Inspector:
In July 2002,your Building Inspector,Mr Michael McGuire,informed Rubina that he would
not be prepared to conduct the final walk-through inspection leading to an occupancy
permit for our above home-to-be. Mr McGuire indicated that he was offended by a
complaint Rubina made against him regarding the manner in which he dealt with concerns
we had about building code violations by our former builder that were not being addressed
while the latter was the legal owner of this property. Since Mr McGuire gave no other option
to Rubina after having made this statement, Rubina naturally asked him what we were
supposed to do. At this point,Mr McGuire informed Rubina that she could ask the
Electrical Inspector to perform this, stating that he also had building inspection experience,
or to ask the Building Commissioner,Mr Robert Nicetta.
In a subsequent conversation with the secretary for the Building Department,Jeanine, for
help with how we were to set up these appointments, Rubina learnt that Mr Nicetta was
rarely available and the Electrical Inspector only worked part-time.When Rubina pointed
out that this was somewhat of an inconvenience,Jeanine also made the comment that it was
not a "particularly nice thing to do to complain about Mike" and that in light of this he
would not be coming to our property.
6. Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Development& Services Director:
In August 2002,in a face-to-face meeting, Rubina informed your Director of Community
Services Ms Heidi Griffin that Willis had taken a total of six mornings off work to attempt
to speak to either Mr LaGrasse or Ms Starr during the public counter hours of 9am to 10am
Page 9of18
T 1 r
and, on each occasion,neither of these officials were available. On each of those days,
Rubina explained that Willis had arrived a few minutes after nine and waited until a few
minutes before ten without ever being able to speak to either of them because they had
either not arrived or, on two occasions,were too busy to talk with him. Rubina then pointed
out that when Willis eventually made phone contact with Ms Starr,he was forced by Ms
Starr to make an appointment to see her during counter hours when the appointment system
was clearly intended for outside counter hours.After Rubina finished describing Willis's
experience,Ms Griffin said that both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse were required to attend to
counter hours and asked if Rubina was certain of this. Rubina assured her that Willis had lost
six mornings off work by no-one from Board of Health being present during counter hours.
Rubina also mentioned the times she too had been affected by the absences at counter hours
at your BOH.A few days later,when Rubina asked to speak to Mr LaGrasse,Ms Griffin was
on hand and,to Rubina's complete surprise, admonished her by stating that"you spent an
hour with him yesterday".When Rubina attempted to explain her side of the story (too
tedious,North Andover,to go into the details here),Ms Griffin retorted with"it's true,I
saw it",which made Rubina decide she was not going to bother with trying to overcome
such an argumentative stance. Ms Griffin's attitude stunned Rubina so much that she did not
mention an unpleasant experience she had recently had with Ms Starr at the counter when
Rubina asked to speak to her,at which time Ms Starr remained totally mute,refused to say
anything,instead untaped a piece of paper from the counter,walked away with it,brought
back what appeared to be a photocopy of this paper,pointed rudely to the statement on it
that said"other times by appointment only", threw the photocopy at Rubina,turned her
back and walked away.
In late November 2002,Willis had a phone conversation with Ms Griffin who brought up
the topic of a letter (dated November 12,2002) she had received from Rubina on our behalf,
in which Rubina also asked for a response from Ms Griffin to various concerns we raised-
needless to say,we never received any reply. In this letter,Rubina had pointed out various
problems we had encountered during our attempts to put our failed septic installation into
compliance,including those as a result of a deeded septic grading easement for our use being
permanently compromised. Rubina had sent the letter to Ms Griffin (who has a background
in Town Planning) as a result of complete frustration at how many errors and problems we
had discovered and were suffering the adverse effects of in our attempts to rectify the septic
non-compliance issues at our property. Ms Griffin stated to Willis that Rubina's letter was
"confusing" and that she did not"know why she sent this to my department".Willis made
no comment to Ms Griffin's assessment of Rubina,but here is our a-b-c explanation for Ms
Griffin having failed to notice the obvious:
• Your officials should not have allowed the violations to occur in the first place;
• having occurred,it is your officials'job,not ours', to detect them,but that is what we
ended up doing;
• having detected them,we were then left to sort out the problems as a result and your
officials failed to notify the parties responsible or to offer compassionate help to us.
7. Mr Robert Beshara,Director of Public Works:
On May 23,2002,the site contractor/septic installer Mr Sawyer accosted both Rubina and
our landscaper about the supposed condition of the granite curbing in the street alongside
Page 10of18
AMb.
our property and accused our landscaper of removing some sort of material from behind the
curbing, an accusation holy denied by our landscaper. At some stage, Rubina also received a
visit from Ms Darcy and her father and subdivision developer Mr Thomas Laudani.
It is pertinent to point out that at the time we were unaware that your town had given a
blanket issuance of a Certificate of Compliance to the developer without checking whether
any of the conditions for the correct installation of the roadway had been met by the
contractors working for the developer.
Within a couple of hours of this -yet another of Mr Sawyer's accusatory bouts -Rubina
returned to our property after a break and noticed someone in a pick-up had parked
alongside our property and was staring at it. A few minutes later, this person got out of the
vehicle and stood on the street, still staring towards our property. Since this was more than
disconcerting, Rubina asked who he was, stating that she was one of the homeowners
(Rubina has got used to doing this as she has been mistaken for being a laborer or cleaning
person before). He introduced himself as "Bob Beshara from DPW" and immediately said
to Rubina "your driveway opening is in the wrong place". Rubina said "what do you mean
it's in the wrong place". Mr Beshara pointed to a drain in the street and told Rubina that was
where it needed to be instead of where it actually was. He then walked to his vehicle,
brought back a piece of paper—an 8"x11" printout of a portion of the approved subdivision
plan detailing our lot—pointed to a drain location depicted on it and then to the drain on the
street and said "that's where your opening should start". Rubina asked him how he knew
that the drain in the street was put in the location per the approved plan. Mr Beshara said"I
measured it". He repeated again that our driveway opening was in the wrong location and
pointed to where he claimed it should be. Rubina then informed him"if we put it there,we
will hit the side of the house", assuming this was evident to Mr Beshara for vehicle entry
into what is a side-entrance garage. Rubina than pointed to the house across the road and
said"see how that driveway is offset from the side of the house, just like the way ours is".
Rubina pointed to the plan showing the same relationship of our driveway to the house and
told Mr Beshara that if he was claiming that the driveway opening needed to start at this
street drain then "it's obvious that our house was put in the wrong location". Mr Beshara
ignored Rubina's observation and said again that our driveway opening was in the wrong
place and that we could not have it where it was. Rubina pointed out that it had been there
ever since we took over the house from our builder and asked"shouldn't you be talking to
the developer? - tell him to sort it out since it's at street level and nothing to do with us".
[You see, Rubina had some idea about the regulation that states "It shall be the developer's
responsibility to assure the proper placement of the driveways regardless of whether
individual lots are sold"]
At this point Mr Beshara revealed the real reason for his sudden `interest'in the location of
our driveway opening—by the way, that no-one in your town was interested in all the time
our former builder was the owner-because he retorted with "well, Mr Sawyer said you told
him to put it there". Rubina, taken aback at Mr Sawyer's appearance in the conversation,
replied "if you must know I did nothing of the sort.This was something we got together
with our builder about and this is the location we all decided on because it is the only place
for it. Perhaps my builder told Mr Sawyer". To this Mr Beshara retorted with a very curt"I
can't get into he-said she-said". So,your official Mr Beshara can report Mr Sawyer's
Page 11 of 18
statement as being fact and if Rubina attempted to give our side of the story,it turns into
"can't get into he-said she-said". Mr Beshara continued in this vein about our driveway
opening being"in the wrong place" and also added that the driveway asphalt could not
impinge on the town easement at street level either. Rubina pointed to the plan that showed
otherwise,but Mr Beshara insisted no part of the easement could have asphalt on it. Rubina
then pointed out that our driveway at street level would then be a very narrow strip barely
one car wide and that,together with its peculiarly-shaped and very acutely-angled approach,
would not be safe to use. She asked if Mr Beshara felt it reasonable that our house would
then have the only driveway in the street looking"both silly and practically unusable".Mr
Beshara stayed adamant,constantly reformatting his angle of attack each time Rubina came
up with an intelligent and commonsense response. Mr Beshara finally browbeat Rubina into
believing we could not leave our driveway entrance in the location where it was. Mr Beshara
told her we would have to apply to Planning for permission to have the driveway opening
and location where it currently was,but unless Planning approved the existing location,we
would have to move it to where he said.When Rubina asked him how this approval process
was done,he explained that we would have to place our application on the agenda for the
next meeting and present our case and went on to make a big production of a chance it
might be denied.
Then the topic switched and Mr Beshara told Rubina that she needed to remove a boulder
wall, a couple of trees and our sprinkler system from what he described as the town access
easement. Having barraged Rubina for over half-an-hour about the driveway opening,he
then proceeded to barrage her for another half-an-hour about these alleged impediments,
also bringing up the claim that our landscaper had"badly damaged the street curbing".
Regarding the latter,apart from some minor popping-out of cement filler between the
curbing sections,neither of us could ever detect anything out of the ordinary in the
condition of the curbing outside our property compared to the rest of the street. Of course,
any attempt on Rubina's part to point this obvious-to-the-eye fact out to Mr Beshara was
met with resistance on Mr Beshara's part,because his agenda for pestering Rubina was
clearly pre-conceived.
The entire experience with Mr Beshara left Rubina drained and shaken because so much of
Mr Beshara's way of speaking was with thinly-veiled threats - this was the main reason Willis
took a day off work the next day to be at our property just in case Mr Sawyer or Mr Beshara
hounded her again. Lo and behold,Mr Beshara turned up again the next day and fortunately
for Rubina,relatively soon after he had begun where he had left off the previous day,Willis
showed up,which resulted in Mr Beshara's switch to a more modulated approach with Willis
present—all white and 61" of him—but essentially got us feeling as if we were some sort of
common criminals with having a driveway opening and trees and sprinkler systems all
allegedly"in the wrong place".
After spending over forty minutes with us on his mission for the good of the subdivision,
Mr Beshara felt it appropriate to send a letter to Rubina ALONE,in which Rubina is
referred to in the third person terms that are unequivocally harassing and humiliating
towards her in their implications. Mr Beshara's letter purports to show how dutiful he is to
send this horrific `discovery'of all these problems Rubina had caused to the town easement
to the `unsuspecting'daughter of the developer.The letter also helpfully contained
numerous additional`discoveries'Mr Beshara had never mentioned to us and that were as
Page 12 of 18
....
'0 ZA/34.
unsubstantiated as his other claims, such as that there was "construction of a driveway"
occurring at our property that he claimed was compromising"the Town's ability to provide
maintenance and repairs to the drainage system". For the record,it was clearly evident to
him that there was no work occurring on construction of a driveway at our property then (or
to date) —but no doubt this `observation'helped the developer to receive his bond money
back. Presumably desperate to pull as much out of his conjuring hat (he forgot the rabbit) as
possible to ensure that only Rubina got blamed for the easement being compromised,Mr
Beshara also made sure everyone knew about"curbing" that the irresponsible "Mrs Rubina
Hendley" allegedly placed in the town access easement. This "curbing", that is such an
alleged impediment to vehicles, consist of 12" long by 5" high blocks of the type available in
Home Depot and used for edging flower beds in millions of homes throughout the country.
North Andover,is there no limit to the degradations your town officials feel they can put us
through?There are so many twisted, exaggerated and sordid claims in Mr Beshara's
communication that are based wholly on unsubstantiated claims and outright lies that we
are left at a loss for words for the brazen manner in which he can get away with writing
these things.
The statement in the letter"the driveway opening was adjusted to suit the homeowner"
implies that the driveway opening location that was in place was due to unreasonable or
flamboyant excesses by us. Not only was this not the case, but it was clearly obvious in any
site visit that it was also the only REASONABLE place for it and we had no other option
since our builder had constructed our house in the wrong location (confirmed by the as-
built on file at the time) and also at the wrong elevation. Exactly the same type of deviation
in location and elevation that occurs at other houses in this subdivision—for example, the
property adjacent to ours has a driveway in a significantly different location and elevation to
the approved plans so as to permanently compromise our deeded septic grading easement
and also cut across our lot line—but of course this is no concern to either your town or Mr
Beshara.
It is noteworthy that in his letter, Mr Beshara refers to a "15'width in the easement to allow
access to maintenance and construction vehicles". The original width of this part of the
easement per the approved plans was 20' total and the SOLE reason Mr Beshara has
reduced it to 15' total (10'instead of the approved 15' on our side of the property line and 5'
on the adjacent homeowners side of the property line) is because he was fully aware that our
builder had positioned our house much closer into the easement side of our property than
the approved plans depicted and that he actually knew this was reason for the easement
being compromised.
Another degradation in this letter was the reference to a May 29 meeting at our property
between the developer's daughter Ms Darcy, Mr Beshara and Mr Sawyer for which we were
not present not we knew nothing about and this letter exposes how these individuals
thought they had a right to impose conditions on how we could use our property.
Worst still, Mr Beshara wrote:
"Requiring the driveway to be built according to plan would require the homeowner to
remove a substantial wall and stairway which would serve no purpose".
Page 13of18
do/
This statement is an example of PURE UNADULTERATED HARASSMENT that was
MALICIOUSLY MADE. Mr Beshara has a PE qualification—he knew exactly what the
effect of that horrific, unsubstantiated, threat to destroy our property was all about.
A few days after receiving this communication, Rubina phoned Mr Beshara and informed
him that since he was "so concerned" about sprinkler systems impinging on town
easements, did he realize there was a sprinkler system and heads within the town easement at
the property next door. Mr Beshara replied, "Is there? Is there? I'll go and knock on their
door and tell them to remove it." Rubina asked when he would do this and Mr Beshara
replied "this afternoon".A few days later, Rubina phoned again to enquire about Mr
Beshara's visit and this is what he came out with "on second thoughts,you can leave your
sprinkler system in place". There are also recently-planted trees on the adjacent property that
also appear to impinge on the access easement—but your town is not going to be interested
in those because they do not form part of the need to use "Mrs Rubina Hendley" to deflect
attention away from violations committed by others.
8. Ms Sandra Starr and Mr Brian La Grasse, Board of Health:
The entire circumstances behind the septic installadon failure at our property that
occurred under the full oversight of your Health Director Ms Sandra Start reveal
administrative failings on a scale that is staggering and incidents ofserious
professional misconduct by both contractors and officials alike.
On Thursday November 21, 2002, Mr LaGrasse, delivered a verbal cease and desist order at
our property to stop work being continued by our contractors who were in the process of
preparing to build a wall alongside an existing septic installation that had been originally
installed to completion in November 2000, under the aegis ofMs Starr,but which,in fact,
signifcandy failed to meet the minimum requirements of Title 5 of the state environmental
code with regard to downhill slope setback requirements for the soil absorption system
because of significant deviations in elevations and locations of permanent structures at the
adjacent occupied property compared to the approved plan.
[Deviations from approved plans at the adjacent property and their subsequent adverse
effect on ours is relevant to consider since the public record clearly shows this entire
subdivision as being an engineered site with complex interaction of the location and
elevation of structures and other elements within and between each lot. Even though Ms
Starr had information from the public record to support the fact that site conditions
deviated significantly from those in the approved septic design plan MONTHS before Mr
Sawyer started work - thereby making this original plan for our property invalid for use by
our former builder and Mr Sawyer and that any septic installation using this plan should
never be allowed to proceed- nevertheless, full installation was allowed using this same
plan,with permit issued to Mr Sawyer and periodic inspections performed by Ms Starr.]
IT IS AN IDISPUTABLE FACT THAT TITLE 5 HAS IN-BUILT
ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS TO HAVE PREVENTED THE WRONG
DESIGN FROM EVER HAVE BEEN USED FOR A SEPTIC INSTALLATION.
Page 14 of 18
Through out own investigation and efforts,we made the painful discovery of significant
Title 5 failure of the septic installation at our property, which also included identifying
significant administrative errors throughout this subdivision made by your various
officials and numerous examples of significant violations of state and local
regulations that had been allowed by them for one reason or another(refer to our
complaint lodged with DEP for examples of these).
The wall construction work that was required around the existing septic installation at our
property was not part of the original design and its purpose was to act as mitigation of
sewage breakout and meeting downhill slope setback requirements for Title 5 minimum
requirements. Compounding the headaches we have incurred as a result of mistakes made by
your officials concerned, the wall was necessary because we were prevented from using a
deeded septic grading easement for our property on the adjacent property because your
officials also wrongly allowed a structure (a driveway) to be placed on it at the wrong
elevation whose location could not be changed either. Thus,instead of being able to add soil
to solve the Tide 5 failures at our property,we had the considerable extra expense of
needing a wall built.
The cease-and-desist order was one of the most vindictive decisions in a whole slew to
which we have been subjected by your officials connected with the building process all the
while we have tried to seek occupancy for a home we have labored hard for. It TOTALLY
UNNECESSARILY prevented our being able to move into our home for the 2002
holidays,particularly as we had suffered enormously* as a result of the serious administrative
mistakes at the hands of Ms Starr and had also ended up personallyidentifying and sorting
out these in order to submit a revision to the original approved septic design plan used for
the installation at our property.
[*We went thorough weeks'long mental shock and agonies believing Ms Starr's decision
that we had no other option but to remove the ENTIRE existing septic installation and
replace it with a new one, because she had failed to ensure that the most fundamental
and vital Title 5 requirement of deeded septic grading easement needing to be depicted on
the original septic design plan. It was entirely due to vigilance on our part and the decision
we made to study Title 5 for ourselves that we were spared this removal and replacement at
a huge cost to us.]
We are as much the victims of the negligence of your Health Director and associated
contractors with regard to our septic installation as are the equally innocent homeowners
living in a property in this subdivision discharging sewage and household waste for the last
three years to a septic system that is in technical violation of Title 5. What is likely to happen
at the point these homeowners might try to sell their property? Discover how the town had
allowed contractors, perhaps long gone, to leave them with this impediment to selling their
property.
We were also present at the time of Mr LaGrasse's visit and the cease and desist order came
as a total shock and surprise to us and we expressed as much to Mr LaGrasse. Mr La Grasse
went on to inform us that we were performing work allegedly in violation of an
administrative condition in which:
Page 15 of 18
J � Q
• a licensed septic installer take out a permit for our wall installation work and for a
minor repair to the end of a plastic septic pipe damaged during tree planting
preparation work by our landscaper;
• then for this installer to stand around the whole time the wall work was being done;
• then for this installer to agree to certify the entire septic installation (original and
new).
Mr La Grasse informed us that unless we complied with these conditions,all work on
building the wall would have to cease. We asked Mr LaGrasse to cite specifically where the
requirements we were expected to comply with were mentioned in the regulations for the
circumstances we were under. At this point Mr LaGrasse did not answer our question,
but instead informed us,with a very broad grin across his face,"that's Steve Ericsen's job
and he should have known better than to let you go ahead with this".
We pleaded with Mr LaGrasse to be allowed to complete the work because we had a
miniscule window of opportunity left before winter conditions made work outside
impossible for the kind of work we needed to do.
Our plight clearly satisfied the spiteful behaviour that we have time and time again been
subjected to with Mr LaGrasse. As he walked away from delivering his cease-and-desist
order, he threw his head back laughing and as he got in his car and drove away he carried on
laughing. This was also witnessed by both our contractors,whose disbelief at Mr LaGrasse's
conduct mirrored ours.
Mr LaGrasse's notification of a cease and desist order at this time of the year,within the
context of the entire circumstances behind the septic installation issues at our property as
well as the manner in which your officials had treated us to date, effectively ended all hope
for us to be able to occupy our home-to-be for the late 2002 holidays and meant we would
have the massive expense of an empty,but otherwise habitable home, to support until the
weather broke in the late spring/early summer of 2003.
The requirement we were given to fulfill by Ms Starr of our needing another septic installer
taking over the responsibility for installation of the original septic installation at our property
is also in complete contradiction to the statement she made to our septic designer,Mr
Steven Ericsen,in September 2002,in which Ms Starr would act as administrative sign-off
for the existing septic installation (in light of Mr Sawyer's refusal to do so for our original
installation) and Mr Ericsen would act as the certified surveyor as the administrative sign-off
for the wall construction. Not just content with shielding the original septic installer from
deception involved in our septic installation, Ms Starr has backtracked on the procedure she
outlined to Mr Ericsen.
In the days after the cease-and-desist notification was given,we both spoke to numerous
officials and also spent running around frantically trying to find a way to comply with yet
another set of`verbal' conditions that defied commonsense as well as our understanding of
the regulations (of course, no support along those lines was ever given us, despite the fact
time and time again—including our written request to Ms Starr originally made in August
2002 that has been totally ignored to date—we asked for these in writing).
Page 16 of 18
Ank
The response from your Town Manager has not helped because its reference to
administrative requirements he claims we should meet contradict the ones repeated time and
again to us by Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse.
Further,in his letter,your Town Manager states:
"Your filing a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection against the
Health Department staff is within your discretion. However,it is uncertain whether the
Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction in the matter. If you believe that
the actions of the Health Department staff were unwarranted or not in compliance with
regulations,you bring the matter before the Board of Health at their next scheduled meeting.
If you wish to do so, please contact Ms Sandra Starr at 978-688-9540 to be placed on the
agenda."
Needless to say,in light of our entire experience with your officials and with Ms Starr and
Mr LaGrasse in particular,we find this suggestion to be almost beyond belief
In the case of our trying to put our existing septic installation into compliance,Ms Starr has
turned what was a straightforward corrective process into a contorted and ugly proceeding
with additional problems created for us,entirely due to her's and Mr LaGrasse's own
administrative mishandling, negligence and outright hostility towards us and by Ms Starr's
shielding of the septic installer's attempts to mislead.
Despite your Town Manager's stance, there is absolutely no justification WFIATSOVER,
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, that the form your officials' behaviors and decisions
have taken to date could be construed as necessary or reasonable for our circumstances.As
for the traits outlined in the "Customer Service Follow Up Form",issued by your
Community Development&Services Division, these are an excruciating reminder to us that
these, the most basic of concepts in public service that should be automatic in their
execution for all,have purposefully excluded us.
We consider it is disgraceful indictment on your town that your officials have given the
`welcome mat' of such nasty associations with our home-to-be and that because of the
environment we have encountered that has been so discriminatory, retaliatory and lacking in
impartiality towards us we are forced to resort to using our attorney to make sure no more
of our rights and liberties are violated.
Yours sin rely,
Willis A M Hendley Rubina Hendley
Page 17 of 18
cc Ms Kathy McKenna,Planning
Building Department
Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation
Mr Hmurciak, DPW
Mr Beshara, DPW
Mr Tim Willet
Ms Sandra Starr, BOH
Mr Brian LaGrasse, BOH
Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Services Development
Lt Melnikas, Fire Inspector
Page 18 of 18
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
OFFICE OF
TOWN MANAGER
120 MAIN STREET
NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01845
Of 10RTy 1
Mark H. Rees �? *. � o� Telephone(978)688-9510
Town.Manager ° • FAX(978)688-9556
°wwno SSACHus
January 8, 2003
Willis and Rubina Hendley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen, MA 01844-2669
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley:
I am in receipt of your various correspondences listing your concerns regarding 10 1.Cricket
Lane. After speaking to appropriate staff, I will attempt to respond to your issues.
• You claim that Mrs. Hendley has been singled out by Town personnel and that
correspondence has been addressed solely to her. In speaking with staff, it appears that a
majority of their interactions and conversations over the past few months have been strictly
with Mrs. Hendley. A letter sent to Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director, dated
November 12, 2002,was signed solely from Mrs. Hendley. However, in response to your
concern, staff has been notified that all correspondence regarding this issue will be
addressed, in the future, to both of you as joint property owners.
• You state that you have been trying to receive a final sign-off on the interior sprinkler
system from the fire inspector since mid-August. Per regulations, the fire inspector is
waiting for a set of prints and calculations for the sprinkler system before granting final
approval. Approximately a year ago, he conducted a flow test on the system but still
required the appropriate paperwork before final approval. The burden to produce the
required documents is on the installer through the property owners.
In order to assist in expediting this issue, Lieutenant Melnikas, in lieu of the required
paperwork, is willing to conduct a"walk-through"in order to visually examine the sprinkler
system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Lieutenant Melnikas
will provide the final sign-off on the interior sprinkler system. Please contact his office at
978-688-9530 to schedule a mutually convenient time.
• Your next concern was in regards to the inspection of the gas appliances. The inspector had
asked your plumber the location of the name plate on the gas appliance in order to see if it
had an approved testing stamp on it. Your plumber informed the inspector that he could not
find the approved stamp. The inspector then asked for you, as the homeowners, to provide
literature on the product to research it further. During the interim, the inspector contacted
the state regulatory agency, as he did not recognize the manufacture of the gas appliance, in
order to see if it had a product approval number which it did not. The inspector was also
informed that the state had discovered that this particular manufacturer had not been keeping
their approvals current. In the meanwhile, the regulatory agency instructed the inspector to
enforce the code until the state decided on what do with this issue.
As you indicated in your letter, you called the regulatory agency on more than one occasion
to verify that the gas inspector was telling the truth. When the inspector received
confirmation from the regulatory agency that he could sign off on your gas inspection upon
receipt of proper testing data, he did so. This coincided with Mr. Hendley's visit to the
inspector.
• You applied for and received a Homeowner License Exemption on May 24, 2001. The
exemption states in part that the homeowner assumes responsibility for compliance with the
State Building Code and other applicable codes, by-laws, rules and regulations. The
homeowner also certifies that he/she understands the Town of North Andover Building
Department's minimum inspection procedures and requirements and that he/she will comply
with said procedures and requirements. Typically, a person/firm engaged in constructing a
dwelling must have a construction supervisor's license, unless a homeowner constructing
their own dwelling receives a homeowner exemption, which you received. However, this
exemption means that the homeowner must abide by the same regulations as a licensed
contractor/builder.
• Staff informs me that the septic system design for your lot was not approved until November
4, 2002 and a Disposal Construction Works permit has not been obtained by a septic
installer licensed in North Andover as of the date of this letter. As such, a request for a
Certificate of Compliance is premature.
It is my understanding that you had a subcontractor that was not licensed in the Town start
working on retaining wall (a component of the approved septic design). You began this
work without the required Disposal Construction Works permit. The health inspector went
to the site and informed you that, since you did not have the proper permit to do the work,
all construction activity must stop immediately. Furthermore, the inspector briefed you to
have a licensed installer obtain the proper permit. This type of septic system design is a
common occurrence in North Andover and numerous installers perform this type of work on
a routine basis.
The Health Department is prepared to assist you in accomplishing this task. They will be
forwarding to you a list of properly licensed installers. Although the season for this type of
work to be accomplished has past, the Health Department will assist you and your installer
in obtaining a variance to complete the project.
• Your filing a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection against the Health
Department staff is within your discretion. However it is uncertain whether the Department
of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction in the matter. If you believe that the actions of
s
the Health Department staff were unwarranted or not in compliance with regulations, you
may bring the matter before the Board of Health at their next scheduled meeting. If you
wish to do so,please contact Ms. Sandra Starr at 978-688-9540 to be placed on the agenda.
I trust I have responded to all of your questions and/or issues. I realize that some of my
responses will not assure you. However, it is imperative that all responsibilities and inspections
conducted by Town of North Andover personnel fully comply with all rules and regulations. Staffs
from the various Town departments are prepared to assist you to complete your project.
If I can be of any assistance in the future,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinc ly,
Mark H. Rees
Town Manager
cc., Chief William Dolan, Fire Department
Ms. Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Division
Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Department
Ms. Sandra Starr, Health Department
Lieutenant Andrew Melnikas, Fire Department
Board of Selectmen
U U L•001111 a 111.%-. OI I. IUVJI VIY7—'' '* LI L
TELEPHONE tl117) ZZ7-8010
TEI,ECOPiER 4617) P17-ZO30
4zw� Y4 J,&
A' nom-&)
)anuary 3,2003
VIA FACSIMME(978) 688-9542
Ms. Sandra Starr,Health Director gtD OF H
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF HEALTHJM
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845 -y--�----
Re: 101 Cricket Lane/Willis and Rubina Hendley
Dear Ms. Starr:
This office represents Willis and Rubina Hendley owners of the property located at 101
Cricket Lane. As you know, the Hendleys arc, and have been for many months, attempting to
obtain a certificate of compliance for their septic system. I am. sure that you are well aware of
the history on this lot.
I would like to meet with you to discuss this matter and what needs to he done to enable
the Hendleys to get the system approved so they can finally occupy the home they purchased
almost three years ago.
I will call you to set up this meeting.
Very trul ours,
ich D. Vetstein
RDV:paa
cc: Willis Headley
Rubina Hendley
Kevin T. Smith, Esq.
MCT/121124.1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
�Z W EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
d DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Metropolitan Boston—Northeast Regional Office
JANE SWIFT - — — BOB DURAND
Governor I f J OF Kt OKF '14,�j /
`EA � _' Secretary O
' .�� LAUREN A.LISS
w � � Commissioner
December 30,2002
Sandra Starr,R.S., Agent
Board of Health
27 Charles Street
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
RE:REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING A COMPLAINT
Walnut Ridge Subdivision,North Andover(17-Ipswich)
Dear Ms. Starr:
The Department of Environmental Protection has received a complaint regarding Title 5 enforcement
as it relates to the Walnut Ridge subdivision in North Andover. The Department has been informed by a
property owner within this subdivision that the septic systems located within this subdivision do not
comply with the requirements of 310 CMR 15.000,Title 5 of the State Environmental Code. The
property owner's allegations are documented in the attachment enclosed.
As you are aware,the Department does not like to become involved in the local health and safety
issues since that jurisdiction generally is assigned to the local Board of Health. However, since a
complaint has been received and involves allegations against a board of health,the Department must
investigate the situation further.
So as to not duplicate effort and so as to leave the situation within your jurisdiction for the time
being,the Department hereby requests that the following information be received by the Department
within fourteen(14)days of your receipt of this letter:
• the Board of Health's and/or its agent's response to the allegations set forth in the attachment to
the complainant's letter;and
• a table noting the addresses of all properties within the subdivision,the dates of issuance of the
Disposal System Construction Permit,Certificate of Compliance and Occupancy Permits,and
reasons for any delays in the issuance of any of these.
Please note that additional information may be requested in the future as a result of the Department's
review of this information.
The Department hopes that this situation can be resolved in a timely fashion that incorporates
protection of the public health, safety and the environment.
This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at(617)574-6872.
205A Lowell St. Wilmington,MA 01887 • Phone(978)661-7600 • Fax(978)661-7615 . TTD#(978)661-7679
Printed on Recycled Paper
Martin Fair / Page 2
• May 28, 2002
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact Claire A. Golden of my staff at(978)
661-7743.
Very truly yours,
Madelyn Morris
Deputy Regional Director
Bureau of Resource Protection
MM/CAG/cag
\2002complaints\walnutridgesub 1
Certified Mail No.
cc: Rubin Hendley, 105 Rolling Ridge Lane,Methuen,MA 01844-2669